Space 2006 AIAA 2006-7345 19 - 21 September 2006, San Jose, California Psychological Factors Associated with Habitat Design for Planetary Mission Simulators Susmita Mohanty Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden Jesper Jørgensen SpaceArch, Vesterbrogade 92, DK-1620 Copenhagen V, Denmark and Maria Nyström, Ph.D. Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden Abstract Knowledge and experience of human and technological problems on long-duration missions to Moon and Mars, is at best minimal or worst-case non-existent, as these expeditions are yet to be undertaken. Problems stemming from isolation, inter-group relationships, human response to and interaction with spacecraft interiors in a confined isolated environment have been studied, but in limited ways. On future long-duration planetary missions, the internal environment of the habitat or transit vehicle will be of greater importance than it has been in low earth orbit or short-term missions to the Moon. This paper is in the realm of environmental psychology. In the context of designing space habitats for future long-term interplanetary human space missions, it postulates that it is ‘mission critical’ to closely integrate ‘space architecture, cognitive sciences, human-technology interface design, environmental and personal psychology’. It points out that future planetary simulators are an opportunity to study the relationship between habitat design and crew psychology. The paper begins with an overview of the origin, scope and limitations of human factors as practiced in the aerospace industry. It presents two case studies that illustrate past endeavors attempting to understand human behavior in the context of long-term isolation and confinement in extreme environments. It highlights behavioral research in Antarctica and its implications for environmental design. It draws attention to a recent study by the European Space Agency that emphasizes the need for psychological research using planetary simulators. It concludes with a discussion that includes (a) the reasons why the relationship between ‘habitat design’ and ‘crew psychology’ has not been studied to the extent it should have been, (b) the need for modeling this relationship as a complex ‘system’ with multi- dimensional interactions between the various elements in the system, and (c) recommendations for undertaking such studies in the future. The paper concludes with an overview of the various components of the ‘system’ that could serve as a first step towards modeling and understanding the relationship mentioned above. I. Introduction Knowledge and experience of human and technological problems on long-duration missions to Moon or Mars, especially of future interplanetary missions, is at best minimal or worst-case non-existent, as these expeditions are yet to be undertaken. Problems stemming from isolation, inter-group relationships, human response to and interaction with spacecraft interiors in a confined isolated environment have been documented to a certain extent via crew debriefs, in-situ photos and videos, but the effect of the ‘time factor’ [mission duration] under these conditions 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Copyright © 2006 by Susmita Mohanty, Jesper Jørgensen, and Maria Nyström. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. is unknown. Experiences from low-orbit space habitats, experiences from polar expeditions and earth bound simulations are a good starting point, but will not suffice if we are to undertake long journeys in the future. On future long-duration missions to Moon and Mars, the internal environment of the habitat or transit vehicle will be of greater importance than it has been in low earth orbit or short-term missions to the Moon. Due to the long travel times or long stays on the planet or both (as in the case of Mars), habitat design must not only be a design for survival of the crew, but a design for every day living. A. Habitability of Early Spacecraft [1] Early spacecraft had been designed to be operated, not lived in. The design emphasis was on making them functional, efficient, reliable, and safe. Weight and volume limitations in the Mercury and Gemini "capsules"-the epithet, though despised by crews, was apt-meant that only the bare requirements for protecting and sustaining life could be provided. Michael Collins, pilot on Gemini 10, compared the two-man Gemini craft to the front seats of a Volkswagen. That tiny space was home for Frank Borman and James Lovell for 14 days on Gemini 7. Borman later admitted they had made it on sheer motivation; after accomplishing their prime purpose, the first orbital rendezvous of two spacecraft, and the rest of the mission had been a test of endurance. [2] B. Space Human Factors in Practice: Origin, Scope and Limitations In 1967, George Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight at NASA Head Quarters, invited renowned industrial designer Raymond Loewy to serve as a ‘Habitability Consultant’ for the Saturn-Apollo and Skylab (Skylab was the first American orbiting space station from 1973-1979) projects. Lowey was hired "to help insure the psycho-physiology, safety and comfort of the astronauts" under the "exotic conditions of zero-gravity."[3] This marked an official recognition by NASA, of the fact that spacecraft architecture and design can significantly influence crew health and behavior. Assisted by a substantial design team, Lowey devised means of promoting both sociability and privacy among astronauts on Skylab missions, argued for the inclusion of a viewing porthole, and suggested ways of handling nutrition, hygiene and elimination in weightlessness. This allowed the astronauts to have a view of earth while in space and grant physiological support. Loewy also installed a triangular table in the Skylab wardroom, so that, as he put it, ‘no man from the three-person crew could be at its head.' He felt that in a three-man crew it was vital that no man, however unconsciously, should dominate the others.[4] The Skylab wardroom table is not only demonstrative of the Loewy’s concerns for ‘habitability’, but also of its ‘psychological’ and ‘social’ implications for the crew that design brings. Loewy and his team, supported by Muller, put the spotlight on the fact that ‘Habitat Design Matters’. Due their efforts, not only did habitability make its way in to the NASA human spaceflight vocabulary, but also psychology, architecture, industrial design, and human factors. Following the Skylab program, human factors engineering became integral to the design process for all human-rated spacecrafts including the Space Shuttle (1981-current) and the International Space Station (1998-current). Starting in the 1960s, the Soviets too, in their own way, started paying attention to the softer human aspects of living in space once the engineers achieved the goals of safety and survivability. Soviet experience showed that long-term confinement in their small Salyut 6 space station (Soviets launched a series of 7 Salyut stations from 1971-1985, followed by the Mir space station complex from 1986-2001) engendered prolonged episodes of boredom. To alleviate the stress of boredom, Soviet cosmonauts spent many off-duty hours at the station windows to obtain spectacular views of the Earth and aurora borealis. Similarly, Skylab astronauts reported looking out of the window, especially looking back at the Earth, as the most favored off-duty activity. Cosmonauts Berezevoy and Lebedev reported that looking outside for long periods of time replaced watching telecasts of artistic performances and video movies as a form of relaxation. In 1978, Salyut 6 cosmonauts were provided with a videotape player and numerous videotapes of movies. Videotapes depicting natural scenery in the Soviet Union were found to be especially appealing to these cosmonauts.[5] Habitability improvements on subsequent Mir, Space Shuttle and then International Space Station (ISS) are all part of an evolving process resulting from habitability studies, crew debriefs, esthetic experimentation, application, and evaluation in an attempt to provide better living and working conditions for the crew of Earth orbiting spacecraft. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics The Russians (formerly, the Soviets) and the Americans, both have tried to address human factors issues in their own distinct ways. On the American side, the industry term is ‘human factors engineering’. It is a broad term that encompasses a slew of human factors issues, including but not limited to, noise, temperature, odors, food, sleep, hygiene, orientation, communication, color, illumination, ergonomics, life-support, man-machine interface, and countermeasures – both physiological and psychological. However, it is important note that each of these issues is addressed with an engineering bias. Therefore, unlike their ‘quantitative’ counterparts, often the ‘qualitative’ aspects of human factor issues do not get the attention they deserve. There is a ‘gray’ zone where quantitative and qualitative factors overlap and this needs to be recognized. II. Past Research Overview: Psychological Factors Associated with Habitat Design The focus of this research paper – psychological factors associated with habitat design – falls in this ‘gray’ zone, where both, qualitative and quantitative factors come in to play. While psychological countermeasures